Feds oppose merger of immigration law challenges
National News
Lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department oppose a request to merge their challenge to the new Arizona immigration law with a lawsuit by a police officer who also is seeking to overturn the law.
The federal lawyers oppose Phoenix police Officer David Salgado's request to consolidate the cases because they say it would prejudice or delay their challenge.
The officer's attorney had argued that the cases are virtually identical because they claim the state law is trumped by federal immigration law and because both seek to keep the state law from being enforced.
The Justice Department says it's challenging more sections of the law than Salgado and that its contention that the law is trumped by federal law differs from the officer's arguments.
Related listings
-
N.J. gay-marriage case must begin in lower court
National News 07/27/2010The push for gay marriage in New Jersey suffered a setback Monday when the state Supreme Court said six gay couples who claim New Jersey has denied them the rights granted to married heterosexual couples must argue their case through the lower courts...
-
Supreme Court to hear Arizona immigration law challenge
National News 07/20/2010The nation's highest court agreed to decide whether the 2007 state law infringed on federal immigration powers and should be struck down.The law at issue in the case is different from the strict new Arizona immigration law passed earlier this year an...
-
Judicial Vacancies Slow the Wheels of Justice
National News 07/12/2010As the Senate prepares to vote on whether Elena Kagan should fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, there remain a substantial number of other vacancies in the nation’s lower federal courts that urgently need filling. Currently, there are about ...
Workers’ Compensation Subrogation of Administrative Fees and Costs
When a worker covered by workers’ compensation makes a claim against a third party, the workers’ compensation insurance retains the right to subrogate against any recovery from that third party for all benefits paid to or on behalf of a claimant injured at work. When subrogating for more than basic medical and indemnity benefits, the Texas workers’ compensation subrogation statute provides that “the net amount recovered by a claimant in a third‑party action shall be used to reimburse the carrier for benefits, including medical benefits that have been paid for the compensable injury.” TX Labor Code § 417.002.
In fact, all 50 states provide for similar subrogation. However, none of them precisely outlines which payments or costs paid by a compensation carrier constitute “compensation” and can be recovered. The result is industry-wide confusion and an ongoing debate and argument with claimants’ attorneys over what can and can’t be included in a carrier’s lien for recovery purposes.
In addition to medical expenses, death benefits, funeral costs and/or indemnity benefits for lost wages and loss of earning capacity resulting from a compensable injury, workers’ compensation insurance carriers also expend considerable dollars for case management costs, medical bill audit fees, rehabilitation benefits, nurse case worker fees, and other similar fees. They also incur other expenses in conjunction with the handling and adjusting of workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation carriers typically assert, of course, that, they are entitled to reimbursement for such expenditures when it recovers its workers’ compensation lien. Injured workers and their attorneys disagree.